Sunday, June 7, 2009

Is Photo District News guilty of "passive raciscm" in their latest photo annual? In a word, no. What started (here) as race-baiting, evolved into money-grubbing race-baiting here, with a well honed charge that PDN's photo contest is passively racist because their jury is all white.

1) By having a jury that looks all white, these individuals will select or be pre-disposed to selecting white photographers, white subjects, or issues predominantly of interest to whites.

2) They should have been actively racist in saying "hey we need a _____ guy or a ______ woman here to round out the color spectrum for our judges."

3) That, independant of race, judge(s) "of color" were asked to judge not for the color of their skin but their stature in the industry, and could not do it, for whatever reason.

(Continued after the Jump)

Premises 1 and 2 are actively racist, as compared to the initial charge which suggests passive racism, and premise 3 results from the lack of actual knowledge of the inner goings-on of the contest, and is an assumption by critics.

The judges didn't have a headshot (or likely even a name) associated with each entry during the judging. Judges don't say "hey, all our entries are about the good in the world as represented by white people, we need some black and asian plight to offset that good so our contests' winning entries appears balanced."

Unfortunately, this charge deserved to stay on the backpage of the Weekly World News, and instead, was brought into, for lack of a better way to put it, the mainstream blogosphere by A Photo Editor (here), so I felt it necessary to put forth a response as well. A silly $1k offer, is the best money the critic will never have to spend, in order to get this type of charge out of the backwater where it should have stayed.

An era has arrived when people are largely judged by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin. Does racism remain? You bet. Whites can be racist, just as well as blacks, asians, hispanics, and so on. We will never eradicate all racism. Bush's trusted Secretarys of State? African American, alonside other races in other cabinet posts. Obama's trusted VP and cabinet officials too cross a spectrum of race, and in both administrations, race was not a factor.

First, it is his blog and he can comment on anything he would like to - don't read it if you don't like it.

Second, this is a real issue in today's world. Political correctness certainly has it's place in the world - and I would think that this post in conjunction with the news about Supreme Court Nom. Judge Sotomayor makes it particularly relevant.

Third, while I can understand the need to make sure that a diverse population is represented in all forms of organizations, both governmental and other, we need to scrutinize the ideas and thoughts behind this trend so that we do it in a manner that is both justifiable and fair. (More thought and investigation prior to the Iraq War could have gone a long way. More thought on this subject certainly can't hurt the cause if it reasonable and just.) Diversity, at the expense of other, more qualified applicants, can lead to unintended consequences. One example - I don't think bad photographers are fairly represented in the "diverse" panel. Does that require that they hire me, or someone with my limited talents, to be a on the panel regardless of my abilities?

Fourth, please have the courage of your convictions. At the very least, provide a first name. If Mr. Harrington is way out of his league, or the groupies are full of kool-aid, have the guts to put your name to it.

I think he's missing the original point, that the selection of the judges is statistically quite odd considering the country and city that the publication originates in, as well as the diversity of the industry at large. Considering that PDN itself wrote about this issue as early as 9 years ago, you'd expect to see more diversity over time instead of less.

It's easy to point to our president and his cabinet and say racism is over, and to entirely ignore the idea of "passive racism," which is totally different than the active and aware ideas spoken about above, but in the end you're betraying your point by addressing the issue at all - it's obviously not a non-issue. It's true that the contest is silly, but calling Stan's heartfelt, if dramatic, protests race-baiting is extremely condescending (at best.)

He's a dedicated educator and has given much to the photographic community through Expiration Notice and other projects, and has been talking about these issues for some time - at least come at it with some sense of the complexity of issues dealt with here instead of dismissing it with no real consideration.

Unfortunately racism, bigotry and prejudice have existed for the entirety of the human existence and will continue. It's not an American invention. Regarding PDN, sometimes juries are going to be all white, or all black or all (pick something). And they're going to choose a winner that looks like them. That's life.

No blind people in that jury!!! And very few blind people in the photo industry at all!

Political Correctness to me often appears not as a way to help fight racism but as a way of accusing others to present one self as righteous with minimal efforts and risks. Or even as some kind of deception. As if racism was ended by simply marking the seperated drinking fountains as "White" and "Afro-American" instead of "Black"?

It's a kind of a vicious circle that makes it easy to accuse someone of racism.

Especially if they are not racists!!!

If you are a racist then you judge people from their colur, race, nationality, religion...and so on. (What makes it easier to have an alib

If you are not, all these things are irrelevant to you.

Consequently, if you don't care if the people you choose are black, jewish, catholic, gay, female, young, old or what ever. You will not ask them. But as a result you may end up with only whites, blacks, jews or with one of them missing at all.

Thanks for reiterating the point. I'm of ethnic heritage myself (i.e., non-white), and I don't think this should be as big of a deal as people are making it. Until PDN releases its process and criteria for selecting judges, accusations are nothing more than speculation.

Many times, the people that get selected are favored because they're close, trusted friends or colleagues. And if most of those friends or colleagues happen to be of a certain race, then there's nothing you can really do about it.

As I said, I'm ethnic myself. And I also run a computer business where all of the people who work for me happen to be white. Does that automatically make me racist or racially biased towards whites? Not necessarily. The people I have chosen to work for me could just as easily have been all black, or all asian, or all hispanic, or etc. I chose my team because I think I know them pretty well, I trust them, I think they can get the job done, and because they happened to be available at the time. Race was not even a consideration at all, as I'd be willing to hire from any racial background.

If an all white panel PDN panel automatically implies racism, then what are we to conclude about basketball teams who happened to be all black? Are whites not good enough to play on basketball teams who happen to be all black?

Unfortunately, I don't think America will ever get over racism until we stop trying to force diversity and political correctness. I say, don't even consider race and just let the chips fall where they may. A truly non-racist nation is a nation where race is neither a favorable or an unfavorable consideration, not a nation where diversity is forced and faked (e.g., affirmative action).

Unbelievable Crap. Waaay too much time on everyone's hands. OMG. The web, and print media are so full of horrible photographers with expensive websites and blogs who are now "new wave", "edgy", "too cool". Jesus Christ what sh*t this whole field has turned to. And, now this. Racism. Wow.Over the top.